Search Team

Search by Last Name
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z

Trading Technologies v. IBG

Representative Claim

1. A method for displaying market information on a graphical user interface, the method comprising:
+++++ receiving by a computing device a current highest bid price and a current lowest ask price for a tradeable object from an electronic exchange;
+++++ identifying by the computing device a long or short position taken by a user with respect to the tradeable object, wherein the long position is associated with a quantity of the tradeable object that has been bought by the user at a price, and wherein the short position is associated with a quantity of the tradeable object that has been sold by the user at a price;
+++++ computing by the computing device a plurality of values based on the long or short position, wherein each of the plurality of values represents a profit or loss if the long or short position is closed at a price level among a range of price levels for the tradeable object;
+++++displaying via the computing device the plurality of values along a value axis;
+++++displaying via the computing device a first indicator at a first location corresponding to a first value along the value axis, wherein the first indicator represents a particular price based on any of the following prices: current best bid, current best ask, and a last traded price, and wherein the first value represents a profit or loss incurred by the user if the long or short position is closed at the particular price; and
+++++moving the first indicator relative to the value axis to a second location corresponding to a second value along the value axis responsive to receipt of an update to the particular price, wherein the second value represents a profit or loss incurred by the user if the position is closed at the update to the particular price.

Posture:

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. CBM2015-00172, CBM2016-00040.

Abstract Idea: Yes

At Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo test, the Court found that the only difference between the prior art and the claimed invention was that the prior art displayed price values and the claimed invention displayed profit and loss (P&L) values.  From here, the Court reasoned that “[i]nformation, whether displayed in the form of price values or P&L values, is abstract.”  The Court further opined that the claimed steps for calculating the P&L values was nothing more than mere automation of manual processes using generic computers.

The Court rejected arguments from the patent owner (appellant) that the claims were not abstract because they provided “a particular graphical user interface that improves usability, visualization, and efficiency.”  In the Court’s view, the claims were “focused on providing information to traders in a way that helps process information more quickly, not on an improvement in computers or technology.” (citation omitted).

Something More: No

At Step 2 of the Alice/Mayo test, the Court found that “[t]he elements of the claims, considered individually and as an ordered combination, fail to recite an inventive concept.”  Here, the Court reasoned that “[e]ven if no trading screen had previously displayed P&L values, a claimed invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it is directed cannot supply the inventive concept that renders the invention ‘significantly more’ than that ineligible concept.” (quotations omitted).